His theory only validates that this universe can be a small part of something else. Something much bigger. What bothers me is the break in the
evidence that causes him to LEAP to the premise of a god.

The basic (beyond-the-ultra-microscopic) building blocks of everything is energy. We can't see this energy, it's so small. The energy collects to make
quantum material. The quantum material combines into atoms, that mix into molecules, that create cells, that form simple organisms, that gather to
make complex organisms, that come together to make us and all that we see. If we follow the logic of this evidence, then it is only logical that we,
too, are part of a larger organism. Maybe each galaxy is a cell in a living thing in a higher dimension.

We know that when a body is injured, white cells rush to the wound to begin the healing process. Our galaxies are rushing off to who knows where or
why, but would it be illogical to assume that the same process might be at work here?

That's exactly as I see it. "God" is simply the larger organism. Our scale in relation to this larger organism is unknown, but my best guess is that
we are very small.. When I think of this larger host/god organism, a fractal structure comes to mind.

Einstein believed in God as well. My take: low IQ people believe in God because they were told He exists and do not question it; average to above
average IQ people question the existence of God and absent clear proof in their mind many remain confused and fail to wholeheartedly believe; those
above "above average IQ" to "superior intelligence" have examined the question and been satisfied of the rationale conclusion that God does, in fact,
exist. How smart are you?

It is all theory. Very little is axiomatic but we EXIST. Show me anything that exist that wasn't created. Should be a fairly common occurrence since
your THEORY states everything we know sprang into being this way. You ask for evidence and I cite life. You wont accept the evidence because you would
have to take a macro-cosmic view which you currently cant do or refuse to because it supports the idea of a creator. It has design, and it has
purpose. Form and Function.

Continue to take the reductionist view put forth by others makes no difference to me but to keep on topic I find it strange that the majority of the
Greatest Minds have gravitated toward some unified theory for life and the universe. Isaac Newton for instance or Pythagoras. These aren't just some
MIT or Oxford professor regurgitating ideas. These are the originators of real scientific thought.

How can you prove whether or not the universe was created or always was? What is it's purpose, form and function?

What is life? Is the earth alive? Is the solar system alive? How does life prove the existence of a creator more or less so that the existence of
the universe itself?

If there exists a creator, where does it exist, within the universe, which by definition is all that exists, or outside of the universe? If a
"creator" created the universe, what did it use to create it?

This might sound new age-ish but can you draw a feeling? You have feelings no one denies that. Can you give me evidence for your feelings? Would a
child be evidence of a feeling of love between you and your spouse? You would say that you do indeed have evidence for these feelings. God can not be
quantified scientifically. You are limiting yourself in your thinking because you have effectively put blinders on which only allow you to see things
which have been filtered through limited observatio

By your logic
I have a feeling
One which can not be denied
And using your own metaphor
I am correct

But unfortunately
The evidence disputes this
It seems that Liverpool football club are no longer the greatest team in the world
So it seems my faith (based on historical reality-we used to be the best-)
Is misplaced
And how do i know this?
I can read the league tables.

His theory only validates that this universe can be a small part of something else. Something much bigger. What bothers me is the break in the
evidence that causes him to LEAP to the premise of a god.

The basic (beyond-the-ultra-microscopic) building blocks of everything is energy. We can't see this energy, it's so small. The energy collects to
make quantum material. The quantum material combines into atoms, that mix into molecules, that create cells, that form simple organisms, that gather
to make complex organisms, that come together to make us and all that we see. If we follow the logic of this evidence, then it is only logical that
we, too, are part of a larger organism. Maybe each galaxy is a cell in a living thing in a higher dimension.

We know that when a body is injured, white cells rush to the wound to begin the healing process. Our galaxies are rushing off to who knows where or
why, but would it be illogical to assume that the same process might be at work here?

That's exactly as I see it. "God" is simply the larger organism. Our scale in relation to this larger organism is unknown, but my best guess is
that we are very small.. When I think of this larger host/god organism, I think of a fractal structure.

Thats all very interesting but remains as unproven belief based on pseudo-science and faith at it's core.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Einstein believed in God as well. My take: low IQ people believe in God because they were told He exists and do not question it; average to above
average IQ people question the existence of God and absent clear proof in their mind many remain confused and fail to wholeheartedly believe; those
above "above average IQ" to "superior intelligence" have examined the question and been satisfied of the rationale conclusion that God does, in
fact, exist. How smart are you?

edit on 30-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

Again, interesting beliefs but I would be interested in some quoted sources for the claims before I subscribed to them.

If something cannot spring into being out of nothing, then we'd have to admit that same principle about God. Proponents of the big bang also find it
hard to believe something sprang out of nothing. They just know that their calculations cannot go any further.

Well to get into that will derail the thread a bit because then we go into whether God is part of creation or outside of creation. Either way it is
not a strong enough basis to negate a God concept. God either emanates creation from within or without. God is not subject to time so it has always
existed. There is no springing forth for God.

See I understand your logic in trying to apply principals we see here to God but by definition of what most would consider God it is not subject to
physical laws. I will be the first to say that I can not describe adequately in any way God or its attributes etc but I can observe creation which I
am a part of and determine that it is governed by laws which have the appearance of design and purpose. The markings of being a creation thus
indicating intelligent design.

The reason their calculations are limited is because they are only considering the creation and not the creator. That is why they are left with a big
null. They may be observing and describing a process (the big bang) but their questions are mechanically driven so they are only ever going to have
half the answer. Seems like when they plug God into the equation they begin to get the unified theories described whether they cloak it in scientific
jargon they are essentially describing God.

It is all theory. Very little is axiomatic but we EXIST. Show me anything that exist that wasn't created. Should be a fairly common occurrence since
your THEORY states everything we know sprang into being this way. You ask for evidence and I cite life. You wont accept the evidence because you would
have to take a macro-cosmic view which you currently cant do or refuse to because it supports the idea of a creator. It has design, and it has
purpose. Form and Function.

Continue to take the reductionist view put forth by others makes no difference to me but to keep on topic I find it strange that the majority of the
Greatest Minds have gravitated toward some unified theory for life and the universe. Isaac Newton for instance or Pythagoras. These aren't just some
MIT or Oxford professor regurgitating ideas. These are the originators of real scientific thought.

How can you prove whether or not the universe was created or always was? What is it's purpose, form and function?

What is life? Is the earth alive? Is the solar system alive? How does life prove the existence of a creator more or less so that the existence of
the universe itself?

If there exists a creator, where does it exist, within the universe, which by definition is all that exists, or outside of the universe? If a
"creator" created the universe, what did it use to create it?

Who created the creator?

Again [/yawn] I'm not making the assertions I just see the evidence lacking.
The burden of proof is on the theists making assertions.

It seems that God represents human misunderstanding. Once we had gods in the sea and clouds. Now we've seemed to push him right out of the universe.
Nonetheless, it's impossible to fathom something existing outside the context of reality and the universe. These claims are really the last ditch
effort of a dying mentality.

Class
I have just spent ages trying to counter this argument and i mean ages(im dyslexic so it takes a while )
And you cut to the quick with one picture
Absolutely class.

People draw their own meaning from art it does not mean that is an accurate portrayal of the artist feeling. How many times does an artist have to
defend their art because people drew their own conclusions based on the imagery etc. Art and feelings these are meant to be ethereal in a sense. They
speak to intuition not logic. They are subjective not objective.

That was my point God can not be proven objectively its only when you merge logic and intuition that you understand a "big picture" idea like a
unified theory of everything.

Munch may have stated what the Scream meant to him but there are other artist who used surrealism for instance where norms are not what they seem.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.